answered question
0
Votes
Votes
3
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
What conclusions can be drawn from the the sauropod dinosaurs findings in 2001?
Were these dinosaur alive in 1000 ad?
|
Report
answers (3)
The article below was found here;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060608090207.htm
"ScienceDaily (June 8, 2006) — When unusually small dinosaur fossils were found in a quarry on the northern edge of the Harz Mountains in 1998, it was initially assumed that these were the remains of a group of young dinosaurs. This was a fallacy, as the Bonn palaeontologist, Dr. Martin Sander, recently discovered. The microstructure of the bones, he says, makes it very likely that the animals involved were adults - a scientific sensation: at a maximum estimated weight of one tonne they were only a fiftieth the weight of their closest relatives, the brachiosaurs, and thus by far the smallest of the giant dinosaurs which have ever been found.?"
But the part that I really found interesting was this;
"This island situation may well be the reason why the 'pygmy dinosaurs' evolved: when the sea level rose, flooding more and more land, food resources became scarce. 'The result was enormous pressure to evolve: smaller animals which needed less food had better chances of survival,' explains Nils Knötschke of the Dinopark in Münchehagen, who has exposed more than 80 per cent of the bones found and also headed the excavations in the quarry. 'Shrinkage like this due to a reduction in the food available can take place extremely rapidly, sometimes within 10 or 20 generations,' Dr. Sander confirms. In Britain, he adds, deer were introduced to the Shetlands which within a short time evolved into a dwarf species of deer.
On the Indonesian islands of Floresthere used to be a miniature version of the elephant which at a height of 90 centimetres was hardly bigger than a St. Bernard - small enough to serve as food for the 'Dragon of the Orient', the Komodo dragon. This all fits in with the discovery which the scientific journal Nature reported on last year: on Flores also the 18,000-year-old bones of a 'dwarf' human. This 'Flores hobbit' was only one metre tall."
So here we have some possible indirect confirmation of the island syndrome that may have led to the evolution of the "hobbits" of Flores.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060608090207.htm
"ScienceDaily (June 8, 2006) — When unusually small dinosaur fossils were found in a quarry on the northern edge of the Harz Mountains in 1998, it was initially assumed that these were the remains of a group of young dinosaurs. This was a fallacy, as the Bonn palaeontologist, Dr. Martin Sander, recently discovered. The microstructure of the bones, he says, makes it very likely that the animals involved were adults - a scientific sensation: at a maximum estimated weight of one tonne they were only a fiftieth the weight of their closest relatives, the brachiosaurs, and thus by far the smallest of the giant dinosaurs which have ever been found.?"
But the part that I really found interesting was this;
"This island situation may well be the reason why the 'pygmy dinosaurs' evolved: when the sea level rose, flooding more and more land, food resources became scarce. 'The result was enormous pressure to evolve: smaller animals which needed less food had better chances of survival,' explains Nils Knötschke of the Dinopark in Münchehagen, who has exposed more than 80 per cent of the bones found and also headed the excavations in the quarry. 'Shrinkage like this due to a reduction in the food available can take place extremely rapidly, sometimes within 10 or 20 generations,' Dr. Sander confirms. In Britain, he adds, deer were introduced to the Shetlands which within a short time evolved into a dwarf species of deer.
On the Indonesian islands of Floresthere used to be a miniature version of the elephant which at a height of 90 centimetres was hardly bigger than a St. Bernard - small enough to serve as food for the 'Dragon of the Orient', the Komodo dragon. This all fits in with the discovery which the scientific journal Nature reported on last year: on Flores also the 18,000-year-old bones of a 'dwarf' human. This 'Flores hobbit' was only one metre tall."
So here we have some possible indirect confirmation of the island syndrome that may have led to the evolution of the "hobbits" of Flores.
| Asker's rating: |
Tell me your conclusions from the article. You say this is interesting. Will you tell me what caught your interest?
Tip davepamn for this comment
|
Report
Well, I do not believe that the dinosaurs existed in 1200AD. I don't think that there is any relationship between these sauropods and birds. I think that birds are from a different line of dinosaurs. So these dinosaurs are the result of island evolution which causes smaller and smaller types to evolve.
Tip morriss003 for this comment
|
Report
i have found Some article which will be really very help ful to you.
i have searched a lot for your answer and i found this useful article. hope this will help to u also
I've been hunting for which finding in 2001 it could be that would prompt both the initial question, and the secondary one of "could these have been alive in 1000 A.D.", and I have to admit I'm stumped. If you could re-ask the question with the article you have in mind, I'd be happy to try answering it.
As for the question whether sauropods could have been alive in 1000 A.D., cryptozoologists would say "Why stop there?" Many of them believe the legends of "dragons" from all over the world are actually stories handed down of dinosaurs. One even sites an estate manager's daybook entry in the 1500's, in Belgium, of one of the tenant farmer's encounter with a small, knee-high "dragon" that the farmer knocked in the head with his staff until it died. The farmer wouldn't have killed it except that it started hissing and spitting at him and he thought it was going to bite him.
Here's an interesting little carving from Angkor Wat. What does it look like to you?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/387549576_61b813fe79.jpg
As for the question whether sauropods could have been alive in 1000 A.D., cryptozoologists would say "Why stop there?" Many of them believe the legends of "dragons" from all over the world are actually stories handed down of dinosaurs. One even sites an estate manager's daybook entry in the 1500's, in Belgium, of one of the tenant farmer's encounter with a small, knee-high "dragon" that the farmer knocked in the head with his staff until it died. The farmer wouldn't have killed it except that it started hissing and spitting at him and he thought it was going to bite him.
Here's an interesting little carving from Angkor Wat. What does it look like to you?
Explain dragons, real or myth.
What most of us think of as "dinosaurs", many cryptobiologists connect with stories and depictions of "dragons", whether from Asian, South American, Middle Eastern or European origins. The stone carvings above are from Southeast Asia.
Other than that, I don't know that I can explain dragons. Or dinosaurs. If I could I'd probably have a show on The Discovery Channel.
Other than that, I don't know that I can explain dragons. Or dinosaurs. If I could I'd probably have a show on The Discovery Channel.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
